BATTLEFORD — After a trial that captivated and polarized the province, Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley has been found not guilty of second-degree murder in the 2016 shooting death of Colten Boushie.

The jury began deliberating around 4 p.m. Thursday and announced shortly before 7 p.m. Friday they had reached a verdict. They had been given the options of finding Stanley guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty of any crime.

As the not guilty verdict was announced at 7:35 p.m. in Battleford Court of Queen’s Bench, Boushie’s mother Debbie Baptiste rose from her seat and screamed.

Some family members restrained her. Others wailed or screamed at the jury.

Many members of Boushie’s family were ushered out of the courtroom in tears by court workers.

Jade Tootoosis, the cousin of Colten Boushie, speaks to media outside of Battleford Court of Queen’s Bench after a jury delivered a verdict of not guilty on Feb. 9, 2018, in the trial of Gerald Stanley, the farmer accused of killing Boushie.Liam Richards /
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Jade Tootoosis, Boushie’s cousin, sobbed in her seat. Later, on the courthouse steps, she said her family will be fighting for an appeal.

“We had hoped for justice for Colten. However, we did not get it. We did not feel it throughout this entire process.” she said.

“We will fight for an appeal. We will fight for an appeal and answers to all of the racism that my family has experienced from the day that Colten was shot until the jury delivered the verdict of not guilty. We will not stop our pursuit for justice.”

Alvin Baptiste, Boushie’s uncle, said the verdict was not right.

“I’m just pretty shocked by the verdict and that my nephew has been denied justice. And how First Nations are treated in the justice system is not right,” Baptiste told reporters outside the courthouse.

Boushie, a 22-year-old from Red Pheasant First Nation, was fatally shot on Aug. 9, 2016, on Stanley’s farm in the RM of Glenside.

After the group left the river, they got a flat tire and then drove onto a farm 15 kilometres northeast of Stanley’s farm, where at least one person attempted to steal a truck by hitting the truck window with a .22-calibre rifle that was in the back of the SUV.

The SUV was eventually driven onto Stanley’s farm. In the ensuing moments, an occupant of the SUV attempted to start a quad on Stanley’s property and the grey SUV collided with a parked vehicle on Stanley’s property, court heard. During the incident, Boushie — sitting in the driver’s seat — was killed by a single gunshot to the head from a handgun held at the time by Gerald Stanley. A bullet entered below Boushie’s left ear and exited on the right-hand side.

Forensic investigation determined Boushie was shot with a Tokarev semiautomatic pistol that was found in Stanley’s home.

Colten Boushie died Aug. 9, 2016.

Premier Scott Moe issued a statement urging Saskatchewan residents to be measured in their reaction to the verdict.

“Let us all remember our personal responsibility for our thoughts, our actions, and our comments – including those on social media,” Moe said. “The Saskatchewan I am proud to call home is one that is strongest when our communities work together … Let us continue to demonstrate consideration, patience, and understanding for one another as we move forward together in reconciliation.”

Chris Murphy, a lawyer representing the Boushie family, said following the verdict that although some people believe the colour of Boushie’s skin didn’t play a role in his death or what has happened since then, they should imagine what it would be like to be a member of Boushie’s family today.

“We will be going to Parliament Hill this month to describe the systemic injustices that this case has revealed,” he said. “But for now, I ask that you trust that Colten’s family has legitimate reasons for these deeply held beliefs. There is a darkness that exists in this country and I believe we are going to have to feel our way out of it.”

Bobby Cameron, chief of the Federation of Indigenous Nations, said in an interview that justice system failed the Boushie family and First Nations in the province.

Gerald Stanley leaves Battleford Court of Queen’s Bench out a back door with members of the RCMP on Feb. 9, 2018, after a jury delivered a verdict of not guilty of killing 22-year-old Indigenous man Colten Boushie.Liam Richards /
THE CANADIAN PRESS

“In reality, a young boy got killed and this jury has to understand that … and Gerald is the one who pulled the trigger despite it being an accident or anything,” Cameron said. “When I got the news (of the verdict) … it was like losing a loved one. That’s how it hit me.”

In a news release, the Battlefords Agency Tribal Chiefs, who represent seven First Nations in the Battleford area, said they were “deeply disturbed” by the verdict and called for “an immediate inquiry examining a number of injustices during this trial including problems with jury selection, the prosecution and trial processes.”

The organization “wants to express deepest condolences to the family and community at large for the loss of Colten and hopes the families can somehow begin to heal and move forward from this senseless tragedy,” they added.

Chief Justice Martel Popescul, addressing the jury following the lawyers’ closing arguments on Thursday, said the first principle of law is the presumption of innocence. There were three possible verdicts to come back with, he said: guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of manslaughter or not guilty in the death of Boushie.

The Crown bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If Stanley is probably or likely guilty, that’s not good enough, Popescul noted. A reasonable doubt is based on reason and common sense, and arises logically from the evidence or lack of evidence.

Chris Murphy, a Toronto-based lawyer representing the Boushie family, left, supports Debbie Baptiste, the mother of Colten Boushie, outside of Battleford Court of Queen’s Bench on Feb. 9, 2018, after a jury delivered a verdict of not guilty in the trial of Gerald Stanley, the farmer accused of killing the 22-year-old Indigenous man.Liam Richards /
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Popescul laid out the possible verdicts for the jury to consider. Both the Crown and defence agreed that it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanley caused the death of Boushie.

The question, Popescul said, is whether Stanley caused Boushie’s death unlawfully by committing an assault or whether the shooting was an unintentional act that had unintended consequences.

To find Stanley guilty of second-degree murder, the Crown must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanley unlawfully caused Boushie’s death and that Stanley had the state of mind necessary for murder. Culpable homicide that is not murder is manslaughter, Popescul explained.

Popescul told jurors that when Stanley grabbed his pistol and fired two warning shots into the air Stanley was acting lawfully. He told the jurors it would be up to them to decide if Stanley’s actions beyond that continued to be lawful

The fatal incident and Stanley’s trial attracted widespread attention in large part because they exposed a deep racial divide in Saskatchewan. In the days after Boushie’s death, social media was filled with racist and hate-filled comments, with some people suggesting farmers have the right to use fatal force to protect their property.

In the hours before the jury began its deliberations, RCMP issued a statement “reminding all people and parties to conduct themselves in a peaceful and civil manner regardless of the outcome.”

Stanley’s earlier court appearances attracted large crowds, with dozens of people gathering in and outside the courtroom to show support for the Boushie family.

Small groups gathered sporadically during the two weeks of the trial, with no incidents of note taking place.

“Neighbours working together in a spirit of inclusiveness and understanding is how the people of Saskatchewan have always met our challenges,” said RCMP assistant commissioner Curtis Zablocki.

Gerald Stanley, front centre, listens to an expert witness explaining evidence shown on a television in his trial in this courtroom sketch in Battleford, Jan. 30, 2018.Cloudesley Rook-Hobbs /
THE CANADIAN PRESS

“Engaging with each other in a respectful and responsible manner is the only way we can truly work towards building stronger, safer communities.”

As the Crown and defence gave their closing arguments Thursday, defence lawyer Scott Spencer attempted to paint a picture of a 56-year-old man reacting as any reasonable person would.

Spencer argued that Boushie’s death was a “freak accident” that occurred when Stanley responded in a “measured” way to a highly charged and dangerous situation that involved — in Stanley’s mind — strangers driving onto his farm, trying to steal his quad, crashing into his wife’s vehicle and attempting to run down his son.

“Things happen when you create this type of home invasion, fear-filled, high-energy roller coaster ride. When you create that, you create an opportunity for there to be an accident and a tragedy. And that’s what happened here,” Spencer told the jury.

“In this circumstance, the question is: If you were in Gerry’s boots, would you reasonably be expected to do anything significantly different?”

The Crown’s primary argument is that Stanley fired two warning shots in the air and then walked up to the SUV Boushie was in and intentionally shot Boushie in the head. If the jury members unanimously believe that version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, they can convict Stanley of second-degree murder.

Stanley testified in court that after firing two warning shots, he realized he couldn’t see his wife and was filled with a feeling of “pure terror” that she might be under the SUV. He said he ran toward it, reached into the driver’s window to turn the vehicle off and the gun — which he believed was empty — “just went off.”

The barrel of a .22-calibre rifle was found by Boushie’s body and DNA evidence suggests the firearm was with him in the driver’s seat at the time he died. Stanley told the jury he saw “something metal” pointed at him when he reached across Boushie to turn off the SUV, but that he hadn’t realized it might be a gun.

In his closing statements, Spencer said it would have been “so easy” for Stanley to have claimed Boushie pointed a rifle at him.

“It would have been way better to testify to self-defence than what actually happened, but he couldn’t,” Spencer told the jury. “He told you what happened.”

Burge took issue with how Stanley described the state of the Tokarev pistol after he fired his second warning shot.

Gerald Stanley, centre, looks on as Crown Prosecutor Bill Burge, right, speaks in this courtroom sketch in North Battleford, Sask., on Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2018.Cloudesley Rook-Hobbs /
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Stanley told the jury he believed he had loaded two bullets in his gun. After he fired the second warning shot, he pulled the trigger several times to make sure the gun was clear, then brought the pistol down and popped the clip out, he testified. Stanley said the slide of the gun was back and the barrel was extended out, suggesting to him that the gun was empty.

If that was truly the case, Stanley’s gun could not have gone off, Burge argued.

“I’m suggesting, ladies and gentlemen, that he told a bit of a story here and he did not, in my submission, tell the truth.”

A cartridge case found in the SUV had an unusual bulge. One possible explanation suggested by firearms experts during the trial was that Stanley’s gun had a hang fire and that, during a delay between when the trigger was pulled and when the cartridge detonated, something caused the cartridge to shift in the chamber of the gun.

Experts said hang fires are extremely rare and the only documented ones have lasted less than a second. They said the possibility of a hang fire may be increased when old and poorly stored ammunition is used.

Firearms expert Greg Williams speaks in court during the trial of Gerald Stanley in this courtroom sketch in North Battleford, Sask., on Thursday, Feb. 1, 2018.Cloudesley Rook-Hobbs /
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Stanley told the jury the ammunition he used in his Tokarev was more than 60 years old and had been kept in an unheated shed. He said he had a hang fire on Aug. 9, 2016.

Spencer told the jury no one will ever know what caused the cartridge casing to bulge, but that a hang fire is the only reasonable explanation.

Burge told the jury that if they are not convinced Stanley had an intention to kill Boushie, they must consider him guilty of manslaughter.

Burge argued that a verdict of manslaughter would be appropriate because Stanley acted unlawfully by carelessly using a firearm. He said this was evident because Stanley did not know how many bullets he loaded into his gun, did not know how many times he pulled the trigger and did not know how to properly disarm his gun.

Burge also questioned Stanley’s claim that Stanley was worried for his wife’s wellbeing. He said Sheldon’s testimony did not support the story that Gerald Stanley sprinted to the vehicle.

In his instructions to the jury, Chief Justice Martel Popescul said Stanley was within his right to get his gun and fire warning shots into the air, but that the jury must decide whether the actions he took after that continued to be lawful.

If jurors decide Stanley is not guilty of second-degree murder and that his actions were not lawful and went beyond what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances, they could convict him of manslaughter. If they decide Stanley is not guilty of second-degree murder and that his actions were reasonable, he would be acquitted.

After more than four hours of deliberation, the jury requested to re-watch testimony from both Gerald and Sheldon Stanley. They asked to hear Sheldon’s testimony from when he came out of the house and heard the third gunshot and Gerald’s testimony starting from the point in which he fired the first shot.

After discussion with the Crown and defence, Popescul decided the jury should re-listen to the entirety of both testimonies rather than portions. He gave the jury the option to listen to Sheldon’s testimony, which was more than an hour long, Thursday night or to start again in the morning. The jury opted to stop for the night.

The jurors were back in court Friday around 9 a.m., taking notes and listening to audio of the testimony. During the trial, Sheldon was on the witness stand for around 75 minutes, while Gerald was on the stand for approximately two and a half hours. The replay of the testimony audio ended shortly before 3 p.m., at which time the jurors were sent back to the jury room.